Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

[Craig Weinberg]

Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/7/2012 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?

> --
Hi Craig,

So far it seems that there is only a singular set of countable
recursive functions (or equivalent) and thus a single Boolean algebra
for the Universal Machine. If the BA (of the Universal number or
Machine) has an infinite number of propositions, how could it be divided
up into finite Boolean subalgebras BA_i, where each of them has a
mutually consistent set of propositions?
Additionally, how is 'time' defined by comp such that
transformations of topologies can be considered.

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Craig Weinberg]

It occurs to me that computation can only occur where topological position is borrowed from the physical, spacetime presence of persistent bodies. Sense and static realism must exist a priori to computation.

Craig

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

I don't really know, but one starts with one point (a number ?)
then two points to form a line, then rotation of that line to form
an angle and a plane as well. I don't see why comp can't do all of that.


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 07:42:18
Subject: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GpiggMAKD74J.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp
> universe?

The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing sense)
by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine
polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all possible
mathematical structure.

This answer your question, but the real genuine answer should explain
why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here
the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see
themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.

In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to typical
topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von
Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully quantum
computers.

No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates
even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial
conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to
participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not
zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

According to Kant, the fundamentals or primitives of spacetime objects
are the two fundamental (inextended) intuitions:

1) a sliver of time alone (showing when something happens)
and 2) a frame of space alone (showuing what happens).

If you join these primitives, then you get an extended object in
spacetime.

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-11-07, 10:24:23
Subject: Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OdGWEHEqEX0J.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:49:04 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg  

I don't really know, but one starts with one point (a number ?) 

then two points to form a line, then rotation of that line to form
an angle and a plane as well. I don't see why comp can't do all of that.

You are starting with geometry to begin with. Why would comp to any of that? Why would a number be a point? What does being a point or forming a line do that makes computation more efficient?

Craig
 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:49:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp  
> universe?

The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing sense)  
by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine  
polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all possible  
mathematical structure.

This answer your question,

It sounds like you are agreeing with me that yes, there is no reason that arithmetic would generate any sort of geometric or topological presentation. Or are you saying that because geometry can be reduced to arithmetic then we don't need to ask why it exists? Not sure.
 

but the real genuine answer should explain  
why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here  
the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see  
themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.

In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to typical  
topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von  
Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully quantum  
computers.

No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates  
even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial  
conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to  
participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not  
zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).

The question though, is why is arithmetic emulating anything to begin with?

Craig
 

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:58:12 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

According to Kant, the fundamentals or primitives of spacetime objects
are the two fundamental (inextended) intuitions:

1) a sliver of time alone (showing when something happens)
and 2)  a frame of space alone (showuing what happens).

If you join these primitives, then you get an extended object in
spacetime.

I agree with Kant (well sort of... I think that there aren't really slivers of time or frames of space, but rather a universe of sense which presents itself as private temporal experience and public spatial realism), but what I am asking about is comp. I think that the fact that geometry exists negates comp.

Craig

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Craig,

    Yes, the set of equivalent computations (equivalent in the sense of all are capable of generating the 1p content) can only occur if there is a topological position. This position is "borrowed" from the space-time that a set of persistent logics have in common. Remember, one Boolean algebra has many different but equivalent Stone spaces as its dual and each Stone space has as it dual many equivalent Boolean algebras. I am using the concept of an equivalence class. A space-time is a Stone space that has some evolution, so it is a sequence of Stone spaces. A computation is the evolution of a Boolean algebra or, equivalently, a sequence of Boolean algebras. S3nse is the 1p content/static realism of every Boolean algebra/Stone space pair - like a snapshot of an experience.
    What must be understood is that there is an (at least) uncountable infinity of these dual pairs and only a finite number of them can have a Boolean algebra (equivalence class) between then, so this gives the illusion of a finite universe of physical stuff for almost any finite subset of dual pairs.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Craig Weinberg]

As far as falsifying comp though, is there any reason for Boolean algebra in and of itself to present itself as a Stone dual? Why have any new ontological presentation of equivalence at all from a pure arithmetic motive?

Craig
 

Onward!

Stephen

[Stephen P. King]

Hi Craig,

    Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally true. This does not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to prove via a method of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on this today: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.htm

"When truths don't commute. Inconsistent histories.

When the uncertainty principle is being presented, people usually – if not always – talk about the position and the momentum or analogous dimensionful quantities. That leads most people to either ignore the principle completely or think that it describes just some technicality about the accuracy of apparatuses.

However, most people don't change their idea what the information is and how it behaves. They believe that there exists some sharp objective information, after all. Nevertheless, these ideas are incompatible with the uncertainty principle. Let me explain why the uncertainty principle applies to the truth, too."


Please read the read at his website

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Nov 2012, at 19:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:49:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp
> > universe?
>
> The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing sense)
> by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine
> polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all possible
> mathematical structure.
>
> This answer your question,
>
> It sounds like you are agreeing with me that yes, there is no reason
> that arithmetic would generate any sort of geometric or topological
> presentation.

"Generating geometry" is a too vague expression.

Keep in mind that if comp is true, the idea that there is more than
arithmetical truth, or even more than some tiny part of it, is
(absolutely) undecidable. So with comp a good ontology is just the
natural numbers. Then the relation with geometry is twofold: the usual
one, already known by the Greeks and the one related to computer
science, and its embedding in arithmetic.

> Or are you saying that because geometry can be reduced to arithmetic
> then we don't need to ask why it exists? Not sure.

Geometry is a too large term. I would not say that geometry is reduced
to arithmetic without adding more precisions.

>
> but the real genuine answer should explain
> why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here
> the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see
> themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.
>
> In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to typical
> topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von
> Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully quantum
> computers.
>
> No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates
> even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial
> conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to
> participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not
> zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).
>
> The question though, is why is arithmetic emulating anything to
> begin with?

Because arithmetic (the natural numbers + addition and multiplication)
has been shown Turing complete. It is indeed not obvious. In fact you
can even limit yourself to polynomial (of degree four) diophantine
relation. But you can use any Turing complete system in place of
arithmetic if you prefer.

I will give a proof of arithmetic Turing universality on FOAR, I will
put it here in cc.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

That was only a clue, not an explanation.

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/8/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-11-07, 12:59:20
Subject: Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/l7V7wWEjNkkJ.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig,

    Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally true. This does not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to prove via a method of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on this today: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.htm

Unfortunately that page seems to be gone?

I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't objectively true though, I'm saying that arithmetic comes from sense and not the other way around. The fact that geometry is arithmetically redundant I think supports that if not proves it. If comp were true, the universe would not and could not have any geometry.

Craig
 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:57:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Nov 2012, at 19:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:49:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp
> > universe?
>
> The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing sense)
> by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine
> polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all possible
> mathematical structure.
>
> This answer your question,
>
> It sounds like you are agreeing with me that yes, there is no reason  
> that arithmetic would generate any sort of geometric or topological  
> presentation.

"Generating geometry" is a too vague expression.

Create? Discover? Utilize?
 

Keep in mind that if comp is true, the idea that there is more than  
arithmetical truth, or even more than some tiny part of it, is  
(absolutely) undecidable. So with comp a good ontology is just the  
natural numbers. Then the relation with geometry is twofold: the usual  
one, already known by the Greeks and the one related to computer  
science, and its embedding in arithmetic.

If the idea of comp is that the origin of consciousness can be traced back to digital functions, I am saying that lets start with an even simpler example of why that isn't true by trying to trace the origin of geometry back to digital function. What specifically does geometry offer that the raw arithmetic behind geometry doesn't? Why the redundancy to begin with? What is functional about geometry?

> Or are you saying that because geometry can be reduced to arithmetic  
> then we don't need to ask why it exists? Not sure.

Geometry is a too large term. I would not say that geometry is reduced  
to arithmetic without adding more precisions.

Can't any computable geometry be stored as numerical codes in digital memory locations rather than points or lines in space?

>
> but the real genuine answer should explain
> why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here
> the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see
> themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.
>
> In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to typical
> topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von
> Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully quantum
> computers.
>
> No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates
> even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial
> conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to
> participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not
> zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).
>
> The question though, is why is arithmetic emulating anything to  
> begin with?

Because arithmetic (the natural numbers + addition and multiplication)  
has been shown Turing complete. It is indeed not obvious. In fact you  
can even limit yourself to polynomial (of degree four) diophantine  
relation.  But you can use any Turing complete system in place of  
arithmetic if you prefer.

Why would a Turing complete system emulate anything though? It is what it is. Where does the concept that it could or should be about something else come from?
 

I will give a proof of arithmetic Turing universality on FOAR, I will  
put it here in cc.

My point is precisely that this kind of universality invalidates Comp. If you have a universal machine, you don't need geometry, don't need feels and smells and hair standing on end...you just need elaborately nested sequences which refer to each other.

Craig
 

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen P. King]

On 11/8/2012 7:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:19:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig,

��� Comp is not false, IMHO, it is just looked as through a very limited window. It's notion of truth is what occurs in the limit of an infinite number of mutually agreeing observers. 1+1=2 has no counter example in a world that is Boolean Representable, thus it is universally true. This does not imply that all mathematical truths are so simple to prove via a method of plurality of agreement. Motl wrote something on this today: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.htm

Unfortunately that page seems to be gone?

��� Try again? http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/when-truths-dont-commute-inconsistent.html

I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't objectively true though, I'm saying that arithmetic comes from sense and not the other way around. The fact that geometry is arithmetically redundant I think supports that if not proves it. If comp were true, the universe would not and could not have any geometry.

��� I agree. Mathematical objects supervene on minds plural (not a mind!).

Craig
�

"When truths don't commute. Inconsistent histories.

When the uncertainty principle is being presented, people usually � if not always � talk about the position and the momentum or analogous dimensionful quantities. That leads most people to either ignore the principle completely or think that it describes just some technicality about the accuracy of apparatuses.

However, most people don't change their idea what the information is and how it behaves. They believe that there exists some sharp objective information, after all. Nevertheless, these ideas are incompatible with the uncertainty principle. Let me explain why the uncertainty principle applies to the truth, too."


Please read the read at his website

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?

If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space. For example, make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.

Look at i, it sits one unit above the real horizontal axis so draw a line from the real numbers to i, so if you multiply i by i (i^2)  it rotates to become −1, multiply it by i again(i^3) and it becomes −i, multiply it by i again (i^4) and it becomes 1, multiply it by i again (i^5) and you've rotated it a complete 360 degrees and you're right back where you started at i.

It is this property of rotation that makes i so valuable in dealing with things that rotate in space, the best example may be electromagnetism where Maxwell used it to describe how electric and magnetic fields change in the X and Y direction (that is to say in the Real and Imaginary direction) as the wave propagates in the Z direction.

 John K Clark 

[Roger Clough]

Hi Bruno

1) Do you have any example snippets from anybody's comp program?
Love to see them.

2) How do you know that such an output can imitate a human mental process ?


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/9/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-11-08, 19:54:04

Subject: Re: Arithmetic doesn't even suggest geometry, let alone awareness.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Kvd1ztKbq-gJ.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Nov 2012, at 01:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:57:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2012, at 19:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:49:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
> >
> > On 07 Nov 2012, at 13:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp
> > > universe?
> >
> > The execution of the UD cab be shown to be emulated (in Turing
> sense)
> > by the arithmetical relation (even by the degree four diophantine
> > polynomial). This contains all dovetailing done on almost all
> possible
> > mathematical structure.
> >
> > This answer your question,
> >
> > It sounds like you are agreeing with me that yes, there is no reason
> > that arithmetic would generate any sort of geometric or topological
> > presentation.
>
> "Generating geometry" is a too vague expression.
>
> Create? Discover? Utilize?

OK. That is more precise. Numbers will obviously develop dreams of
many geometries.
Please note that this is a shorthand for "numbers have relation which
correspond to computation supporting person dreaming to ...". I do
assume comp, and the knowledge that arithmetic is Turing universal.

>
>
> Keep in mind that if comp is true, the idea that there is more than
> arithmetical truth, or even more than some tiny part of it, is
> (absolutely) undecidable. So with comp a good ontology is just the
> natural numbers. Then the relation with geometry is twofold: the usual
> one, already known by the Greeks and the one related to computer
> science, and its embedding in arithmetic.
>
> If the idea of comp is that the origin of consciousness can be
> traced back to digital functions, I am saying that lets start with
> an even simpler example of why that isn't true by trying to trace
> the origin of geometry back to digital function. What specifically
> does geometry offer that the raw arithmetic behind geometry doesn't?

This is a good question. you can consult the literature. Even
Descartes's discovery of analytical geometry is considered by many as
a proof of a reduction of geometry to arithmetic or algebra. But the
fact that a theory reflect another does not eliminate the interest of
the first theory.
Like some other logicians, I tend to believe that the whole of the
known human math can be obtained by reasoning in arithmetic. This is
confirmed up to now/ many analytical constructions have been
"reduiced" to arithmetical expression. The famous Riemann hypothesis
has been reduced to a PI_1 arithmetical sentence by Turing for
example, despite it looks like a statement in complex analysis. Most
analytical proof have been reduced into elementary (in arithmetic)
proof. Only logician can diagonalize such proofs and find mathematical
statements not reducible to arithmetic, but those are ad hoc and made
only for that purpose.

> Why the redundancy to begin with? What is functional about geometry?

The redundancy can be helpful for the stability of the ideas.
There is also a question of efficiency. All you can do with a high
level language, can be done in assembly language, and some earlier
computer scientist believed that high level programming was just for
the babies, and would never succeed. But you laptop would not exists,
if there were no layers and layers of languages and application using
those reduction.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Or are you saying that because geometry can be reduced to arithmetic
> > then we don't need to ask why it exists? Not sure.
>
> Geometry is a too large term. I would not say that geometry is reduced
> to arithmetic without adding more precisions.
>
> Can't any computable geometry be stored as numerical codes in
> digital memory locations rather than points or lines in space?

Then a Youtube video will look like

A1200F4457B586CCCFD
45E9EE2783AAFA210AA
F1221F4EE7B586CECFD
...

With a very long length. Are you sure you will enjoy it as much as
looking to quickly moving pixels that your brain can decode much more
easily?

>
>
>
>
> >
> > but the real genuine answer should explain
> > why some geometries and topologies are stastically stable, and here
> > the reason have to rely on the way the relative numbers can see
> > themselves, that is the arithmetical points of view.
> >
> > In this case it can be shown that the S4Grz1 hypostase lead to
> typical
> > topologies, that the Z1* and X1* logics leads to Hilbert space/von
> > Neuman algebra, Temperley Lieb couplings, braids and hopefully
> quantum
> > computers.
> >
> > No need to go that far. Just keep in mind that arithmetic emulates
> > even just the quantum wave applied to the Milky way initial
> > conditions. And with comp, the creature in there can be shown to
> > participate in forums and asking similar question, and they are not
> > zombies (given comp, mainly by step 8).
> >
> > The question though, is why is arithmetic emulating anything to
> > begin with?
>
> Because arithmetic (the natural numbers + addition and multiplication)
> has been shown Turing complete. It is indeed not obvious. In fact you
> can even limit yourself to polynomial (of degree four) diophantine
> relation. But you can use any Turing complete system in place of
> arithmetic if you prefer.
>
> Why would a Turing complete system emulate anything though?

It does not do this necessarily, unless you program it to do it, like
the UD, or like the set of arithmetical theorems of a Turing complete
theory.

> It is what it is. Where does the concept that it could or should be
> about something else come from?

Because once we bet on comp, we attach consciousness to computations.
To be short. Those computations exists independently of us in
arithmetic, and that explains where the dreams come from. Then the
mind-body problem, to be solved, needs to explains where the coherent
sharable dreams come from, and what makes them relatively stable. if
comp is true, the reason can be shown in the existence of some
relative measure.

>
>
> I will give a proof of arithmetic Turing universality on FOAR, I will
> put it here in cc.
>
> My point is precisely that this kind of universality invalidates
> Comp. If you have a universal machine, you don't need geometry,
> don't need feels and smells and hair standing on end...you just need
> elaborately nested sequences which refer to each other.

Not in the relative situation. Even a program can prefer, or need to
use, adapted representation; like when you look at YouTube.
This is a key point: it is not because some high level reality emerges
from a lower level reality that it can be said not existing, in some
genuine, even if not primitive, sense. This is provably so for
arithmetic: a complete theory of arithmetical truth cannot be finite,
it will needs an infinity of axioms. Higher and higher level exists,
and escape necessarily the low levels, for their behavior, despite the
existence of them is reducible to the lower realm. That is why humans
are NOT bunch of interacting molecules. That's why souls are not bodies.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:36:18 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can anyone explain why geometry/topology would exist in a comp universe?

If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space.

I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects, movement, space, or rotation in a comp universe. You can prove this by understanding that there are no objects or spaces actually moving around in the chips of your computer. Everything that you want to do with arithmetic can be done with numbers alone, no points, spaces, lines, forms, or objects are ever needed, nor could they add anything to the functionality.

For example, make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.

Do you understand why computers don't need to do that? This is my point, we have visual intuition because we have visual sense as a method of participating in a universe of sense. It would be meaningless in a universe of arithmetic.

Look at i, it sits one unit above the real horizontal axis so draw a line from the real numbers to i, so if you multiply i by i (i^2)  it rotates to become −1, multiply it by i again(i^3) and it becomes −i, multiply it by i again (i^4) and it becomes 1, multiply it by i again (i^5) and you've rotated it a complete 360 degrees and you're right back where you started at i.

It is this property of rotation that makes i so valuable in dealing with things that rotate in space, the best example may be electromagnetism where Maxwell used it to describe how electric and magnetic fields change in the X and Y direction (that is to say in the Real and Imaginary direction) as the wave propagates in the Z direction.

I'm not talking about why human beings find geometry useful. I am saying, IF the universe were purely functional, with no human beings, no consciousness even, why would geometry be useful to mathematics? Why would there even begin to be a theoretical underpinning for a universe which remotely resembles this one?

Craig
 

 John K Clark 

[John Clark]

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space.

> I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects, movement, space, or rotation in a comp universe.

I don't know what a "comp universe" is because I no longer know what "comp" means and I no longer believe that Bruno, the inventor of the term, does either.  But I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.

> You can prove this by understanding that there are no objects or spaces actually moving around in the chips of your computer.

Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain. 

>> make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.

> Do you understand why computers don't need to do that?

I said a lot of stuff so I'm not sure what "that" refers to (sometimes pronouns can really suck) but apparently you believe that computers have some innate ability that humans lack, there is something computers already know and so "don't need to do that".

I do know that computers calculate with complex numbers all the time, especially when rotation in 3D is important, such as calculations involving Maxwell's or Schrodinger's equation.

> This is my point, we have visual intuition because we have visual sense as a method of participating in a universe of sense. It would be meaningless in a universe of arithmetic.

I would maintain that computers are already far better than humans in determining what a complex object will look like when it is rotated.

> I am saying, IF the universe were purely functional,

I don't know what that means, is the universe broken? 

> Why would there even begin to be a theoretical underpinning for a universe which remotely resembles this one?

I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.

  John K Clark

 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:15:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If numbers exist then so does geometry, that is to say numbers can be made to change in ways that exactly corresponds with the way objects move and rotate in space.

> I'm saying that there would be no such thing as objects, movement, space, or rotation in a comp universe.

I don't know what a "comp universe" is because I no longer know what "comp" means and I no longer believe that Bruno, the inventor of the term, does either.  But I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.

It bothers me because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a universe of experiences full of objects and positions can be reduced to a mechanism for which objects and positions are meaningless. What I am pointing out is that what comp implies is a universe which looks and feels nothing like the one which we actually live in. It does present a plausible range of logical functions which remind us of some aspects of our minds, but I think that there is another reason for that, which has to do with the nature of arithmetic. Comp mistakes the lowest common denominator universality of arithmetic for a claim to primitive authenticity and causal efficacy, when in fact numbers by themselves don't even have a use for geometric forms.

> You can prove this by understanding that there are no objects or spaces actually moving around in the chips of your computer.

Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain. 

That doesn't matter. My point is that our senses require a particular presentation of forms and experience for us to consciously make sense, whereas a computer does not need any such thing. The fact that we have ion pumps does not allow us to forego the luxury of having a screen and GUI to use our computer geometrically. Servers don't need GUIs to communicate with each other, but more importantly, no kind of computer will ever benefit from any kind of geometric presentation of data.
 

>> make the Real numbers be the horizontal axis of a graph and the imaginary numbers be the vertical axis, now whenever you multiply a Real or Imaginary number by i you can intuitively think about it as rotating it by 90 degrees in a counterclockwise direction.

> Do you understand why computers don't need to do that?

I said a lot of stuff so I'm not sure what "that" refers to (sometimes pronouns can really suck) but apparently you believe that computers have some innate ability that humans lack, there is something computers already know and so "don't need to do that".

It's not that they have an ability that humans lack, it is that humans are privileged with the sense of forms and objects, while computers are forever confined to the intangible (if there were any subject there to act as having a computer's point of view - which there isn't.)
 

I do know that computers calculate with complex numbers all the time, especially when rotation in 3D is important, such as calculations involving Maxwell's or Schrodinger's equation.

> This is my point, we have visual intuition because we have visual sense as a method of participating in a universe of sense. It would be meaningless in a universe of arithmetic.

I would maintain that computers are already far better than humans in determining what a complex object will look like when it is rotated.

I would agree that it is better at plotting such a complex object rotation on a screen for us to admire, but the computer itself wouldn't know an object from a string of bank transactions. Computers know nothing, they think of nothing, they understand nothing. What a computer does is no different than what a lever does when a metal ball falls on to one side of it and the other side rises. You will likely tell me again that potassium ions are no different, and you aren't wrong, but the difference is that we know for a fact that potassium ions are part of an evolved self organizing biological system that thinks and feels while no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again. Instead of trying to sweep this obvious and important difference under the rug, I suggest that the difference in structural organization is not the whole story, and that experience itself, accumulated through time, contributes to the life represented by the bodies of such self-dividing systems.
 

> I am saying, IF the universe were purely functional,

I don't know what that means, is the universe broken? 

No, it means that comp is digital functionalism - it promotes the position that subjectivity and reality can be reduced to arithmetic functions rather than aesthetic experiences or physical matter.
 

> Why would there even begin to be a theoretical underpinning for a universe which remotely resembles this one?

I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.

Yet you claim to be omniscient about what I can't know.

Craig
 

  John K Clark

 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.

> It bothers me because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a universe of experiences full of objects and positions can be reduced to a mechanism

But a universe without electrons or time or space or bits or logic does make sense? Lack of logic makes sense?

> What I am pointing out is that what comp implies is a universe which looks and feels nothing like the one which we actually live in.

I'm not here to defend "comp", that's Bruno's job, I don't even know what the word means.

> It does present a plausible range of logical functions which remind us of some aspects of our minds, but I think that there is another reason for that, which has to do with the nature of arithmetic.

So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.

>> Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain.

> That doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter?! If I change the position of those potassium and sodium ions in your brain it will matter very much to you because your consciousness will change. Yes that's right, the position of those "meaningless objects" can be the difference between ecstasy and suicidal depression, and you Craig Weinberg will never find anything that matters more than that.

> My point is that our senses require a particular presentation of forms and experience for us to consciously make sense,

Einstein had access to the same raw data as everybody else, but being a genius he could make sense out of it even though the data was not presented in a ideal way, and once he had done that he could teach those with less powerful minds, like you and me, how to make sense out of it too. Exactly the same is true of computers.

> I would agree that it [a computer] is better at plotting such a complex object rotation on a screen for us to admire, but the computer itself wouldn't know an object from a string of bank transactions. Computers know nothing,

I would like to know how you know that computers know nothing. Did that knowledge come to you in a dream?

> What a computer does is no different than what a lever does when a metal ball falls on to one side of it and the other side rises.

Well... A computer is no different from a few hundred trillion levers interconnected in just the right way that rise and fall several billion times a second, and you're no different from that either.

> You will likely tell me again that potassium ions are no different, and you aren't wrong, but the difference is that we know for a fact that potassium ions are part of an evolved self organizing biological system that thinks

Yes.

> and feels

Although other evolved self organizing biological system behave as if they feel there is only one that I know for a fact actually does feel, and it goes by the name of John Clark. My hunch is that other biological systems can feel too, my hunch is that being biological is not necessary for that to happen but I don't know it for a fact.

> while no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.

A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.

>> I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.

> Yet you claim to be omniscient about what I can't know.

I didn't specifically mention you, but if you have a guilty conscience don't blame me, and I do seem to remember you saying something about having solved the "AI hard problem", nobody seems very clear about exactly what that problem is but it certainly sounds hard.

John K Clark

 
 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:15:48 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I do know that over the past year you have told this list that information does not exist, and neither do electrons or time or space or bits or even logic, so I don't see why the nonexistence of movement in a "comp universe" or any other sort of universe would bother you.

> It bothers me because it doesn't make sense to suggest that a universe of experiences full of objects and positions can be reduced to a mechanism

But a universe without electrons or time or space or bits or logic does make sense? Lack of logic makes sense?

Spacetime exists for us as objects, it just doesn't exist independently of objects. The difference between object surfaces is a spatial discernment of sense. Logic is an intellectual sense of summarizing other kinds of sense in a minimalist way. Bits are a figure of speech referring to the role played by a class of controlled physical structures. All of these things are very natural and easy to explain for me as aspects of sense. There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of. Nobody else seems to be able to think of one either.
 

> What I am pointing out is that what comp implies is a universe which looks and feels nothing like the one which we actually live in.

I'm not here to defend "comp", that's Bruno's job, I don't even know what the word means.

Then we have no beef.
 

> It does present a plausible range of logical functions which remind us of some aspects of our minds, but I think that there is another reason for that, which has to do with the nature of arithmetic.

So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.

It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality.
 

>> Electrons move around the chips in your computer, and potassium and sodium ions move around the Cerebral Cortex of your brain.

> That doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter?! If I change the position of those potassium and sodium ions in your brain it will matter very much to you because your consciousness will change. Yes that's right, the position of those "meaningless objects" can be the difference between ecstasy and suicidal depression, and you Craig Weinberg will never find anything that matters more than that.

You are making my point. They only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me. Nobody cares about them for what they are, only what we feel, and what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation. There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself.
 

> My point is that our senses require a particular presentation of forms and experience for us to consciously make sense,

Einstein had access to the same raw data as everybody else, but being a genius he could make sense out of it even though the data was not presented in a ideal way, and once he had done that he could teach those with less powerful minds, like you and me, how to make sense out of it too. Exactly the same is true of computers.

Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery, not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge. That is not true of computers. 

> I would agree that it [a computer] is better at plotting such a complex object rotation on a screen for us to admire, but the computer itself wouldn't know an object from a string of bank transactions. Computers know nothing,

I would like to know how you know that computers know nothing. Did that knowledge come to you in a dream?

Because I understand what knowledge is and I understand why computers can't experience knowing. How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot?
 

> What a computer does is no different than what a lever does when a metal ball falls on to one side of it and the other side rises.

Well... A computer is no different from a few hundred trillion levers interconnected in just the right way that rise and fall several billion times a second, and you're no different from that either.

We are completely different - we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies. We are not an assembly of disconnected parts.
 

> You will likely tell me again that potassium ions are no different, and you aren't wrong, but the difference is that we know for a fact that potassium ions are part of an evolved self organizing biological system that thinks

Yes.

> and feels

Although other evolved self organizing biological system behave as if they feel there is only one that I know for a fact actually does feel, and it goes by the name of John Clark. My hunch is that other biological systems can feel too, my hunch is that being biological is not necessary for that to happen but I don't know it for a fact.

I would agree with you except that my hunch is that your hunch about biology being unnecessary is premature. I would call my hunch more of an understanding though. I see exactly why you and others are seduced by this hunch because I had the same hunch and I see why it ultimately fails to ground either symbols or matter.
 

> while no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.

A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.

It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore it never gets chance to repeat itself...you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat.
 

>> I don't have a theory that explains everything about the universe and neither does anybody else, but unlike some I am wise enough to know that I am ignorant.

> Yet you claim to be omniscient about what I can't know.

I didn't specifically mention you, but if you have a guilty conscience don't blame me, and I do seem to remember you saying something about having solved the "AI hard problem", nobody seems very clear about exactly what that problem is but it certainly sounds hard.

I don't know what the AI hard problem is, but I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness and bridges the Explanatory Gap, or at least provides the correct foundation for it.

Craig

John K Clark

 
 

[John Clark]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.

There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?

>> So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.

> It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality.

The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said "minds" and not " Craig Weinberg's mind".

> They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me.

OK, there is no disputing matters of taste.

> what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation.

Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?

> There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself.

To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so. And there may not be a theory to explain why but there is not the slightest doubt that changes in those potassium and sodium ions cause PROFOUND changes in your consciousness and your subjective emotional state. So if ions in a few pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your shoulders can create consciousness I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that electrons in a semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they produce the same behavior. 

> Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery,

OK.

>  not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge.

What's the difference?

> How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot?

I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails the Turing Test.

> we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies.

A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't know how it does it.

> We are not an assembly of disconnected parts.

Nothing is "an assembly of disconnected parts".

>>>  no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.

 

>> A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.

> It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore it never gets chance to repeat itself.

It's true that a real computer, unlike a theoretical Turing Machine, does not have a infinite memory and so can't be in a infinite number of states, but you don't have a infinite memory either and so your brain can't be in a infinite number of states. You and the computer are in the same boat.

> you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat.

If you believe that a real computer can't finishing peating and thus can't repeat I take it that you're retracting your comment that a computer just does "the same thing over and over again".

 

> I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness

And your approach is that people are conscious because they use free will to make decisions and they use free will to make decisions because they are conscious. That doesn't sound very hard to me, or very deep.

  John K Clark

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:43:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.

There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?

A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.
 

>> So the fact that arithmetic can produce the exact same sort of behavior that minds are so proud of, like playing Chess or solving equations or winning millions on Jeopardy, is all just a big coincidence. If you really believe that then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you.

> It's not a coincidence at all, but neither is the fact that arithmetic fails miserably at producing the sort of behavior that minds take for granted, like caring about something or having a personality.

The thing I'm most eager to hear is why you said "minds" and not " Craig Weinberg's mind".

I was imitating you, since that was how you said it I wanted to be equally presumptuous.
 

> They [potassium and sodium ions in your brain] only matter to me because of the feelings and experiences their configurations make available to me.

OK, there is no disputing matters of taste.

> what we feel is in no way linked to those objects except through empirical relation.

Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?

If you mean that bullet-induced mortality is an argument for the supervenience of qualia on physics I don't think that it is. A brain with a hole in it is just as likely or unlikely to be associated with an experience of consciousness as anything else from a functional point of view.
 

> There is no theory by which their configuration should lead to anything beyond the configuration itself.

To hell with theories. Just because there is no theory to explain a phenomenon does not mean the phenomenon does not exist; nobody has a theory worth a damn to explain why the universe is accelerating but all astronomers know that it is nevertheless doing so.

Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.
 

And there may not be a theory to explain why but there is not the slightest doubt that changes in those potassium and sodium ions cause PROFOUND changes in your consciousness and your subjective emotional state. So if ions in a few pounds of grey goo inside the bone box on your shoulders can create consciousness

They can't, and they don't. Just as the pixels on your screen do not speak in my voice, the grey goo is only a thin slice of what a person actually is. The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating consciousness. The computer on your desk is not creating the internet. The radio receiver is not creating the radio station.
 

I don't understand why its such a stretch to imagine that electrons in a semiconductor can do the same thing, especially if they produce the same behavior. 

It isn't a stretch at all - atoms in a semiconductor do make sense of conditions which affect them - the sense they make of those conditions we think are electrons (and other bosons, mesons, and fermions), but that's because we are using atoms to look at atoms and imagining that we are seeing through a neutral medium. What atoms in a semiconductor don't make is the sense with which we employ them. Just as a coffee filter is not aware of its role as a coffee filter, the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole. It isn't even a computer, it's just traffic signals on a clock for the mindless traffic of unrelated events in the semiconductor neighborhoods.

> Einstein made more sense of the data was through imagination and discovery,

OK.

>  not through mechanistic data processing or accumulation of knowledge.

What's the difference?

A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents semantically, but there is nothing there that cares about it. It's just going to sit there forever.
 

> How do you know that Bugs Bunny isn't tasting anything when he eats a carrot?

I don't know it for a fact but I strongly suspect it because Bugs fails the Turing Test.

We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and describe the flavor of the carrots. Then Bugs passes the Turing Test.

> we are a single cell which knows how to divide itself into trillions of copies.

A cell in your body can divide into two or a trillion cells, but you don't know how it does it.

The how isn't important. I don't know how computers get distributed to specific stores either, but that doesn't change that there is a fundamental basis for distinction between living organisms and inorganic assemblies.
 

> We are not an assembly of disconnected parts.

Nothing is "an assembly of disconnected parts".

Machines have parts which can be fastened, welded, or soldered together, but they are still disconnected units which originate in different processes and places.
 

>>>  no inorganic lever system seems to aspire to anything other than doing the same thing over and over again.

 

>> A computer calculating the value of PI never repeats itself, it never returns to a previous state.

> It never leaves the state it's in. Calculating the value of Pi is one of the kinds of acts which requires infinite resources to complete, therefore it never gets chance to repeat itself.

It's true that a real computer, unlike a theoretical Turing Machine, does not have a infinite memory and so can't be in a infinite number of states, but you don't have a infinite memory either and so your brain can't be in a infinite number of states. You and the computer are in the same boat.

No because I am not about to be so dumb and robotic as to blindly follow someone's instruction to compute Pi to the last digit like a computer would.
 

> you have to finish 'peating' to be able to re-peat.

If you believe that a real computer can't finishing peating and thus can't repeat I take it that you're retracting your comment that a computer just does "the same thing over and over again".

No, I'm not retracting at all, I'm saying that you have picked an example which gives the computer no opportunity to finish a task. By definition a computer does the same thing over and over again, it's got a clock which repeats and all of its functions are defined as recursively enumerable through the rigid repetition of that clock.

 

> I do think that my approach does solve the Hard Problem of consciousness

And your approach is that people are conscious because they use free will to make decisions and they use free will to make decisions because they are conscious. That doesn't sound very hard to me, or very deep.

People are conscious and have free will because that is the quality of participation of a human being. Consciousness itself is an elaboration of sense, which is the capacity to make a difference and detect differences. That capacity is more primitive than information or matter and that is how the hard problem is solved. The answer to the Hard Problem of why there is experience at all is because there is nothing except experience in the universe. Matter and information are kinds of sense experience.

Craig
 

  John K Clark

[John Clark]

 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.

>> There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?

> A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.

First you're complaining that there is no relationship between numbers and geometry and now you're complaining that there is a relationship. Make up your mind what you're unhappy about!

> Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.

Don't be ridiculous. There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.

> The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating consciousness.

That is provably untrue. That is provably untrue. If I change your brain your consciousness changes and if you change your consciousness your brain changes.

> the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole.

I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.

> It isn't even a computer,

I see, a computer isn't a computer and X is not Y and X is not not Y.   No, I'm wrong, I don't see.

> Machines have parts which can be fastened, welded, or soldered together, but they are still disconnected

And now connected things are disconnected. I suppose black is white too.

> it's just [...]

It's just something that can perform most intellectual tasks and beat the hell out of you at many of them, things that until just a few years ago most were convinced only humans could accomplish.

> A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents semantically,

Just like a brain.

> but there is nothing there that cares about it.

I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.

> Consciousness itself is an elaboration of sense, which is the capacity to make a difference and detect differences.

Like a thermostat.

> People are conscious and have free will

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.

> We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and describe the flavor of the carrots.

That sounds like fun, lets do it!

John K Clark

 

 

 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:58:01 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can think of.

>> There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that geometry can describe numbers. What more do you need?

> A reason that there could possibly be a difference between the two.

First you're complaining that there is no relationship between numbers and geometry and now you're complaining that there is a relationship. Make up your mind what you're unhappy about!

I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for arithmetic. I'm not unhappy about it, I'm happy to have found an easy way of proving that disproving functionalism need not even have to do with consciousness - we can show that even parts of mathematics itself is unexplainable to its own terms.

> Astronomers can't see neurons turning acoustic patterns into music though. Nobody can see that, because it may not be happening at all.

Don't be ridiculous. There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.

I'm never being ridiculous. A correlation among patterns in brain activity and acoustic vibration does not imply that vibrations in the air turn into an experience of sound. If I say 'a figure with three sides' I have not drawn a triangle.

> The brain is not creating consciousness. The brain is not creating consciousness.

That is provably untrue. That is provably untrue. If I change your brain your consciousness changes and if you change your consciousness your brain changes.

Why would that correlation prove that consciousness is created by the brain any more than it proves that the brain is created by consciousness, or that both are created by information, or sense, or physics, or demons?

> the computer knows nothing about the computations as a whole.

I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.

What kind of evidence do you need? If a computer knew what it was computing then you wouldn't have to correct any typos because it would already know what you were probably trying to say. It would learn to change its own software to do that, like a personal assistant would. Instead, predictive text is almost useless. No human being is as stupid in their native language as even the most sophisticated computers are stupid in guessing what we mean when we ask simple questions like 'how are you?'

> It isn't even a computer,

I see, a computer isn't a computer and X is not Y and X is not not Y.   No, I'm wrong, I don't see.

A computer is a collection of switches, but it is only a collection in our imagination. The switches don't know that they are part of a collection. They don't know there is a computer, just as these words don't know they are part of a sentence.
 

> Machines have parts which can be fastened, welded, or soldered together, but they are still disconnected

And now connected things are disconnected. I suppose black is white too.

If I tear someone's brain into pieces but then glue them back together with paraffin wax, does that count as connected or disconnected?

> it's just [...]

It's just something that can perform most intellectual tasks and beat the hell out of you at many of them, things that until just a few years ago most were convinced only humans could accomplish.

Computers are great at doing very boring things very quickly. They are very helpful to us because we find boring tasks unpleasant. They have no purpose or life in the universe beyond that.

> A filing cabinet can accumulate knowledge, and Google can sort the contents semantically,

Just like a brain.

A brain computes, but it makes a better vehicle for a person than it does a computer. It computes but it is not only a computer.

> but there is nothing there that cares about it.

I've been hearing you say stuff like that over and over and over and over again for one year now, and in all that time you have never once offered the smallest particle of evidence in support of your view.

What kind of evidence do you want? If I input into my computer 'Say the word 'no' if you don't want me to destroy your motherboard right now' there is no computer in the world that knows how to develop the ability to say no and to mean it.

> Consciousness itself is an elaboration of sense, which is the capacity to make a difference and detect differences.

Like a thermostat.

A palm tree and a shadow of a palm tree both sway in the wind. That doesn't mean they are the same thing.

> People are conscious and have free will

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.

That is a comment.

> We could have a conversation over the phone where I imitate Bugs voice and describe the flavor of the carrots.

That sounds like fun, lets do it!

"Nyeaaah...What's up Doc?"

Craig


 

 

 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for arithmetic.

Pythagoras discovered and proved his famous theorem using geometry, only later was it expanded into the world of numbers.   

>> There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.

>A correlation among patterns in brain activity and acoustic vibration does not imply that vibrations in the air turn into an experience of sound.

There is a test to determine which of our competing claims is true. Lets monitor a composers brain, say John Williams, and see if Crack makes the neurons in his brain fire in a atypical manner, if it does let him compose some music under the influence of Crack. Then we bring in a panel of music critics and ask them if the new composition is in Williams typical style. Do you really think they will say it sounds just like the Star Wars theme?

> A computer is a collection of switches,

Yes.

 > but it is only a collection in our imagination.

Bullshit.

 > The switches don't know that they are part of a collection.

Yes, and a neuron in your brain doesn't know it's part of a collection.

> They don't know there is a computer

And a neuron doesn't know there is a brain.

> Computers are great at doing very boring things very quickly.

That's why people are so bored with computers, boring computers like Xbox's and iPones and Blu Ray players and iPods. 

"Nyeaaah...What's up Doc?"

!

  John K Clark


 

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 1:36:58 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would never claim there is no relationship between numbers and geometry, I claim that there is no function which geometry serves for arithmetic.

Pythagoras discovered and proved his famous theorem using geometry, only later was it expanded into the world of numbers.   

That supports my point: People need geometry, computers don't. A world made by and for computers would not, could not contain any geometric objects.
 

>> There is certainly a connection between the patterns of neurons in a composer's brain and the patterns of sound he produces, if Beethoven were given Crack his neurons would fire differently and his symphonies would also be different.

>A correlation among patterns in brain activity and acoustic vibration does not imply that vibrations in the air turn into an experience of sound.

There is a test to determine which of our competing claims is true. Lets monitor a composers brain, say John Williams, and see if Crack makes the neurons in his brain fire in a atypical manner, if it does let him compose some music under the influence of Crack. Then we bring in a panel of music critics and ask them if the new composition is in Williams typical style. Do you really think they will say it sounds just like the Star Wars theme?

You keep missing your presumption of causality. Try it the other way. Lets use Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to reproduce these brain pattens you are talking about. If we make John Williams brain activity exactly the same and run it in reverse, will crack smoke come out of his mouth?

> A computer is a collection of switches,

Yes.

 > but it is only a collection in our imagination.

Bullshit.

Bullshit is an ASCII string I don't care to parse...just like a computer can't parse 'itself' as a 'collection' of anything.
 

 > The switches don't know that they are part of a collection.

Yes, and a neuron in your brain doesn't know it's part of a collection.

Of course it does. It is a living organism surrounded by it's identical twin siblings. That's how the neurons which have access to the image of the fire hydrant can find their way to collaborating with the words 'fire hydrant'. The entire brain is a community of living organisms in constant communication. You don't get that, do you?
 

> They don't know there is a computer

And a neuron doesn't know there is a brain.

What makes you pronounce that utterly unsupported edict?
 

> Computers are great at doing very boring things very quickly.

That's why people are so bored with computers, boring computers like Xbox's and iPones and Blu Ray players and iPods. 

Computers don't play games, talk on the phone, watch TV or listen to music. Those things are interesting, fun things. Computers redraw thousands of pixels 75 times a second over and over forever. They negotiate telecommunication protocols to transfer messages that they cannot read between people they don't know.  You're a smart guy John, how can you not have the foggiest idea how obvious this is? I can only speculate strong hemispheric brain lateralization. I see the left and the right, while you see the right and the wrong.

Craig